3 ms·
Eek 0.75 per GB of storage! AWS is 0.115 One of our DBs has 2.3TB in it.
by ericstegemann 3y ago
Eek 0.75 per GB of storage! AWS is 0.115
One of our DBs has 2.3TB in it.
- yashap 3y agoYeah, I’d imagine this will be cheaper than AWS RDS for low storage use cases (lack of fixed monthly compute costs wins out), but more expensive for high storage. Like quite cheap for a 10-100 GB DB, quite expensive for a 1-10 TB GB. Though they do say: > when we enable global read replication, you won’t have to pay extra for it, nor will replication multiply your storage consumption With AWS you’ll have at least one read replica for failover, so $0.23/GB. And if you really want global read replicas, with AWS you might end up with something like a primary in North America and read replicas in South America, Europe and Asia. That would work out to $0.46/GB, so closes the gap a bit.
- re-thc 3y agoDepends if you do more compute than store data. I’ve been in a lot of analytical workloads running different types of reports besides your normal CRUD.
- jFriedensreich 3y agoat least at the moment D1 is for a completely different use case, d1 has currently a limit of 100mb and will now be increased to 1gb.
- Akkuma 3y agoThe costs as a whole has me worried. I'm not sure it'll be better than just using https://turso.tech/pricing https://turso.tech/pricing as that is already a free tier of 8GB and it might cost less overall the paid tier.
- re-thc 3y agoIt's 8gb in total including replicas. 1 database with 2 replicas (up to 3 free) would be <3gb in reality. It'll most likely cost more overall.
- re-thc 3y agoBetter than Planetscale at 2.5 per GB and you have to pay for replicas.